[holdonnow]

If this case deals exclusively with the facts in the admissions programs at Michigan and Michigan Law, it sets precedent for NOTHING. The problem with this brief is that it gives cover to Sandra Day O'Connor and perhaps Anthony Kennedy to cut the baby in half, as Bush did, i.e., it's illegal as to the facts in Michigan, but not otherwise. You don't build precedence this way, which is why every conservative legal group I'm aware of was stunned with the difference between what Bush said, and what his brief argued.

[MJY1288]

I'm not an attorney, But what is the argument in the brief filed by the lawyers for the two students? and can they win? and if so, will it set precedence?

[mrsmith]

"cut the baby in half"
OK, I understand.

But don't you think that is what the court would do anyway?
Isn't the public view of this issue going to have to be changed before the court will reject it's previous rulings?